Surveillance duplex ultrasound prompted interventions after carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Current societal guidelines recommend duplex ultrasound (DUS) surveillance beyond 30 days after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with risk factors for restenosis or who underwent primary closure. However, the appropriate duration of this surveillance has not yet been identified, and the rate at which DUS surveillance prompts intervention is unknown. Multiple calls for decreasing health care spending that does not provide value, including unnecessary testing, have been made. The purpose of this study was to examine the rate of intervention prompted by surveillance DUS on the ipsilateral or contralateral carotid artery after CEA and determine the value of continued surveillance by determining the rate of DUS-prompted intervention. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective chart review of all patients older than 18 years who had undergone CEA from August 2009 to July 2022 was performed. Patients with at least one postoperative duplex in our Intersocietal Accreditation Council-accredited ultrasound lab were included. Exclusion criteria were patients with incomplete medical charts or patients who underwent a concomitant procedure. The primary end point was return to the operating room for subsequent intervention based on abnormal surveillance DUS findings. Secondary end points were the number of postoperative surveillance duplexes, duration of surveillance, and incidence of perioperative stroke. The study participant data were queried for patients who had a diagnosis of stroke that occurred following their procedure. RESULTS: A total 767 patients, accounting for 771 procedures, were included in this study, which resulted in 2145 ultrasound scans. A total of 40 (5.2%) patients required 44 subsequent interventions that were prompted by DUS surveillance scans. The average number of ultrasound scans per patient was 2.8 (range: 0-14), and the average duration of surveillance was 26.4 months (range: 0-155 months). Of the 767 patients, 669 (87.2%) had a unilateral CEA. A total of 62 of 767 (8.1%) patients had planned endarterectomies on the contralateral side based on initial imaging, not prompted by interval DUS surveillance scans. Of 767 patients, 28 (3.7%) patients who underwent CEA had a subsequent procedure for progression of contralateral disease, which was prompted by duplex surveillance scans. The average duration between index CEA and intervention on contralateral carotid was 29.57 months (range: 3-81 months). A total of 11 patients, accounting for 12 procedures, underwent a subsequent procedure for restenosis of their ipsilateral carotid, prompted by duplex surveillance scans. The average duration between index CEA and reintervention on the ipsilateral carotid was 17.9 months (range: 4-70 months). Three of 767 (0.4%) patients in total were identified as having a perioperative stroke. CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate of ipsilateral reintervention after CEA is low. A small percentage of patients will progress their contralateral disease, ultimately requiring surgical intervention. These data suggest that regular duplex surveillance after CEA is warranted for patients with at least moderate contralateral disease; however, the yield is low for ipsilateral restenosis after 36 months based on this single institution study. Further study is needed to better delineate which patients need follow-up to decrease unnecessary testing while still targeting patients most at risk of restenosis or contralateral progression of disease.

The effect of controlled vs uncontrolled hypertension on outcomes of carotid revascularization procedures.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension (HTN) has been implicated as a strong predictive factor for poorer outcomes in patients undergoing various vascular procedures. However, limited research is available that examines the effect of uncontrolled HTN (uHTN) on outcomes after carotid revascularization. We aimed to determine which carotid revascularization procedure yields the best outcome in this patient population. METHODS: We studied patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), or transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) from April 2020 to June 2022 using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients were stratified into two groups: those with cHTN and those with uHTN. Patients with cHTN were those with HTN treated with medication and a blood pressure of <130/80 mm Hg. Patients with uHTN had a blood pressure of ≥130/80 mm Hg. Our primary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and 30-day mortality. Our secondary outcomes were postoperative hypotension or HTN, reperfusion syndrome, prolonged length of stay (LOS) (>1 day), stroke/death, and stroke/death/MI. We used logistic regression models for the multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 34,653 CEA (uHTN, 11,347 [32.7%]), 8199 TFCAS (uHTN, 2307 [28.1%]), and 17,309 TCAR (uHTN, 4990 [28.8%]) patients were included in this study. There was no significant difference in age between patients with cHTN and patients with uHTN for each carotid revascularization procedure. However, compared with patients with cHTN, patients with uHTN had significantly more comorbidities. uHTN was associated with an increased risk of combined in-hospital stroke/death/MI after CEA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.87; P < .001), TFCAS (aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.21-2.08; P < .001), and TCAR (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.73; P = .003) compared with cHTN. Additionally, uHTN was associated with a prolonged LOS after all carotid revascularization methods. For the subanalysis of patients with uHTN, TFCAS was associated with an increased risk of stroke (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.39-2.37; P < .001), in-hospital death (aOR, 3.73; 95% CI, 2.25-6.19; P < .001), reperfusion syndrome (aOR, 6.24; 95% CI, 3.57-10.93; P < .001), and extended LOS (aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.51-2.32; P < .001) compared with CEA. There was no statistically significant difference between the outcomes of TCAR compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study show that patients with uHTN are at a higher risk of stroke and death postoperatively compared with patients with cHTN, highlighting the importance of treating HTN before undergoing elective carotid revascularization. Additionally, in patients with uHTN, TFCAS yields the worst outcomes, whereas CEA and TCAR proved to be safer interventions. Patients with uTHN with symptomatic carotid disease treated with CEA or TCAR have better outcomes compared with those treated with TFCAS.

Higher stroke risk after carotid endarterectomy and transcarotid artery revascularization is associated with relative surgeon volume ratio.

OBJECTIVE: Adoption of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) by surgeons has been variable, with some still performing traditional carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whereas others have shifted to mostly TCAR. Our goal was to evaluate the association of relative surgeon volume of CEA to TCAR with perioperative outcomes. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative CEA and carotid artery stent registries were analyzed from 2021 to 2023 for symptomatic and asymptomatic interventions. Surgeons participating in both registries were categorized in the following CEA to CEA+TCAR volume percentage ratios: 0.25 (majority TCAR), 0.26 to 0.50 (more TCAR), 0.51 to 0.75 (more CEA), and 0.76 to 1.00 (majority CEA). Primary outcomes were rates of perioperative ipsilateral stroke, death, cranial nerve injury, and return to the operating room for bleeding. RESULTS: There were 50,189 patients who underwent primary carotid revascularization (64.3% CEA and 35.7% TCAR). CEA patients were younger (71.1 vs 73.5 years, P < .001), with more symptomatic cases, less coronary artery disease, diabetes, and lower antiplatelet and statin use (all P < .001). TCAR patients had lower rates of smoking, obesity, and dialysis or renal transplant (all P < .001). Postoperative stroke after CEA was significantly impacted by the operator CEA to TCAR volume ratio (P = .04), with surgeons who perform majority TCAR and more TCAR having higher postoperative ipsilateral stroke (majority TCAR odds ratio [OR]: 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-3.96, P = .01; more TCAR OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.96, P = .04), as compared with those who perform majority CEA. Similarly, postoperative stroke after TCAR was significantly impacted by the CEA to TCAR volume ratio (P = .02), with surgeons who perform majority CEA and more CEA having higher stroke (majority CEA OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.00-2.27, P = .05; more CEA OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.14-2.00, P = .004), as compared with those who perform majority TCAR. There was no association between surgeon ratio and perioperative death, cranial nerve injury, and return to the operating room for bleeding for either procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The relative surgeon CEA to TCAR ratio is significantly associated with perioperative stroke rate. Surgeons who perform a majority of one procedure have a higher stroke rate in the other. Surgeons offering both operations should maintain a balanced practice and have a low threshold to collaborate as needed.

Systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the racial disparities in the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Race-based disparities in health care have been related to a myriad of prevailing factors among minorities in the United States. This study aims to study the race-based differences in the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: The PROSPERO database registered the review protocol (CRD42023428253). A systematic English literature review was performed using literature databases PubMed and Scopus from inception till June 2023. The review was designed on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and included studies reporting mortality, stroke, or composite outcome of mortality and stroke after CEA for carotid artery disease, regardless of any degree of stenosis including both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The risk of bias was evaluated utilizing the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A pooled odds ratio (OR) for the overall mortality was computed, and a P value of < .05 was designated as statistically significant. Interstudy heterogeneity was evaluated by Q-metric and quantified using Higgins I2 statistics. RESULTS: Twelve studies were identified which included a total of 574,055 patients who underwent CEA from 1998 to 2022. Eleven of 12 studies reported 30-day mortality as an outcome for patients undergoing CEA in which 524,708 patients (92.5%) were White and 42,797 (7.5%) were non-White. The overall pooled OR indicated a statistical significance in 30-day mortality between White and non-White patients undergoing CEA (OR, 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-2.18; P = .011) with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 56.3%). Eleven of 12 studies reported stroke as an outcome for patients undergoing CEA in which 524,708 patients (92.5%) were White and 42,801 (7.5%) were non-White. The overall pooled OR indicated no statistical significance in stroke between White and non-White patients undergoing CEA (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65; P = .111) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 35.9%). Five of 12 studies reported composite mortality or stroke as an outcome for patients undergoing CEA. The overall pooled OR indicated no statistical significance in composite mortality or stroke between White and non-White patients undergoing CEA (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.24-1.59; P = .467) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Non-White patients have a relatively higher risk of mortality; however, no significant difference was observed between the racial groups in terms of stroke or a composite outcome of mortality or stroke. The odds of mortality in non-White patients have been persistent throughout recent studies.

Implications of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) decision to expand indications for carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: On October 11, 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded the indications for carotid artery stenting (CAS) to include patients with ≥50% symptomatic or ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The aim of this article was to investigate the implications of this decision. METHODS: The reasons behind the increased coverage for CAS are analyzed and discussed, as well as the various Societies supporting or opposing the expansion of indications for CAS. RESULTS: The benefits associated with expanding CAS indications include providing an additional therapeutic option to patients and enabling individualization of treatment according to patient-specific characteristics. The drawbacks of expanding CAS indications include a possible bias in decision-making and an increase in inappropriate CAS procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The purpose of the CMS recommendation to expand indications for CAS is to improve the available therapeutic options for patients. Hopefully this decision will not be misinterpreted and will be used to improve patient options and patient outcomes.

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS. RESULTS: BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

Symptomatic carotid webs require aggressive intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid web (CaWeb) is a rare form of fibromuscular dysplasia that can produce embolic stroke. Misdiagnosis of symptomatic CaWeb as "cryptogenic stroke" or "embolic stroke of unknown source" is common and can lead to recurrent, catastrophic neurologic events. Reports of CaWeb in the literature are scarce, and their natural history is poorly understood. Appropriate management remains controversial. METHODS: CaWeb was defined as a single, shelf-like, linear projection in the posterolateral carotid bulb causing a filling defect on computed tomography angiography (CTA) or cerebral angiography. Cases of symptomatic CaWeb at a single institution with a high-volume stroke center were identified through collaborative evaluation by vascular neurologists and vascular surgeons. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients with symptomatic CaWeb were identified during a 6-year period (2016-2022). Average age was 49 years (range, 29-73 years), 35 of 52 (67%) were African American, and 18 of 52 (35%) were African American women under age 50. Patients initially presented with stroke (47/52; 90%) or transient ischemic attack (5/52; 10%). Stenosis was <50% in 49 of 52 patients (94%) based on NASCET criteria, and 0 of 52 (0%) CaWebs were identified with carotid duplex. Definitive diagnosis was made by CTA examined in multiple planes or cerebral angiography examined in a lateral projection to adequately assess the posterolateral carotid bulb, where 52 of 52 (100%) of CaWebs were seen. Early in our institutional experience, 10 of 52 patients (19%) with symptomatic CaWeb were managed initially with dual antiplatelet and statin therapy or systemic anticoagulation; all suffered ipsilateral recurrent stroke at an average interval of 43 months (range, 1-89 months), and five were left with permanent deficits. Definitive treatment included carotid endarterectomy in 27 of 50 (56%) or carotid stenting in 23 of 50 (46%). Two strokes were irrecoverable, and intervention was deferred. Web-associated thrombus was observed in 20 of 50 (40%) on angiography or grossly upon carotid exploration. Average interval from initial stroke to intervention was 39 days. After an average follow-up of 38 months, there was no reported postintervention stroke or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the largest single-institution analysis of symptomatic CaWeb yet reported. Our series demonstrates that carotid duplex is inadequate for diagnosis, and that medical management is unacceptable for symptomatic CaWeb. Recurrent stroke occurred in all patients managed early in our experience with medical therapy alone. We have since adopted an aggressive interventional approach in cases of symptomatic CaWeb, with no postoperative stroke reported over an average follow-up of 38 months. In younger patients presenting with cryptogenic stroke, especially African American women, detailed review of lateral cerebral angiography or multi-planar, fine-cut CTA images is required to accurately rule out or diagnose CaWeb and avoid recurrent neurologic events.

Modality-specific outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization in the setting of recent myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: Recent myocardial infarction (MI) represents a real challenge in patients requiring any vascular procedure. There is currently a lack of data on the effect of preoperative MI on the outcomes of carotid revascularization methodology (carotid enterectomy [CEA], transfemoral carotid artery stenting [TFCAS], or transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]). This study looks to identify modality-specific outcomes for patients with recent MI undergoing carotid revascularization. METHODS: Data was collected from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2016-2022) for patients with carotid stenosis in the United States and Canada with recent MI (<6 months) undergoing CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR. In-hospital outcomes after TFCAS vs CEA and TCAR vs CEA were compared. TCAR vs TFCAS were compared in a secondary analysis. We used logistic regression models to compare the outcomes of these three procedures in patients with recent MI, adjusting for potential confounders. Primary outcomes included 30-day in-hospital rates of stroke, death, and MI. Secondary outcomes included stroke/death, stroke/death/MI, postoperative hypertension, postoperative hypotension, prolonged length of stay (>2 days), and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The final cohort included 1217 CEA (54.2%), 445 TFCAS (19.8%), and 584 TCAR (26.0%) cases. Patients undergoing CEA were more likely to have prior coronary artery bypass graft/percutaneous coronary intervention and to use anticoagulant. Patients undergoing TFCAS were more likely to be symptomatic, have prior congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo urgent operations. Patients undergoing TCAR were more likely to have higher rates of American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV to V, P2Y12 inhibitor, and protamine use. In the univariate analysis, CEA was associated with a lower rate of ipsilateral stroke (P = .079), death (P = .002), and 30-day mortality (P = .007). After adjusting for confounders, TFCAS was associated with increased risk of stroke/death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-5.35; P = .005) and stroke/death/MI (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.60; P = .025) compared with CEA. However, TCAR had similar outcomes compared with CEA. Both TFCAS and TCAR were associated with increased risk of postoperative hypotension (aOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.18-2.23; P = .003 and aOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.31-2.32; P ≤ .001, respectively) and decreased risk of postoperative hypertension (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95; P = .029 and aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71; P ≤ .001, respectively) compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: Although recent MI has been established as a high-risk criterion for CEA and an approved indication for TFCAS, this study showed that CEA is safer in this population with lower risk of stroke/death and stroke/death/MI compared with TFCAS. TCAR had similar stroke/death/MI outcomes in comparison to CEA in patients with recent MI. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Comparative assessment of racial disparity in 30-day outcomes for Asian Americans undergoing carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is an effective treatment for carotid stenosis. All previous studies on racial disparity of CEA outcomes omitted Asian Americans. This study aimed to address this gap by investigating racial disparities in 30-day outcomes following CEA among Asian Americans. METHODS: Asian American and Caucasian patients who underwent CEA were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted database from 2011 to 2021. Patients with age less than 18 years old were excluded. Patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis were examined separately. A 1:5 propensity-score matching was used to address preoperative differences. Thirty perioperative outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: There were 380 Asian Americans (2.27%) and 13,250 Caucasians (79.18%) with symptomatic carotid stenosis who underwent CEA. Also, 289 Asian Americans (1.40%) and 18,257 Caucasians (88.14%) with asymptomatic carotid stenosis had CEA. Asian Americans undergoing CEA presented with higher comorbid burdens and more severe symptomology. Also, asymptomatic Asian Americans were more likely to undergo surgeries for mild stenosis (<50%), which is not in line with practice guidelines. After 1:5 propensity-matching, all symptomatic Asian Americans were matched to 1550 Caucasian patients, and all asymptomatic Asian Americans were matched to 1445 Caucasians; preoperative differences were addressed. Asian Americans exhibited low overall 30-day mortality (symptomatic, 1.61%; asymptomatic, 0.35%) and stroke (symptomatic, 2.26%; asymptomatic, 0.69%). All perioperative outcomes were comparable to Caucasians, with the exception that Asian Americans experienced longer operation times. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggested that Asian Americans with asymptomatic stenosis were underrepresented in CEA. After propensity-score matching, Asian Americans demonstrated comparable 30-day outcomes to Caucasians. These suggest that, when afforded equal access to quality health care, CEA serves as an effective treatment for carotid stenosis among Asian Americans. Therefore, efforts may be aimed at addressing health care access, potentially in the screening for asymptomatic carotid stenosis in Asian Americans. This would ensure they have equitable benefits from CEA. Nevertheless, the exact preoperative differences and long-term CEA outcomes in Asian Americans should warrant further examination in future studies.

Seven years of the transcarotid artery revascularization surveillance project, comparison to transfemoral stenting and endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: This study utilizes the latest data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI), which now encompasses over 50,000 transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) procedures, to offer a sizeable dataset for comparing the effectiveness and safety of TCAR, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Given this substantial dataset, we are now able to compare outcomes overall and stratified by symptom status across revascularization techniques. METHODS: Utilizing VQI data from September 2016 to August 2023, we conducted a risk-adjusted analysis by applying inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare in-hospital outcomes between TCAR vs tfCAS, CEA vs tfCAS, and TCAR vs CEA. Our primary outcome measure was in-hospital stroke/death. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury. RESULTS: A total of 50,068 patients underwent TCAR, 25,361 patients underwent tfCAS, and 122,737 patients underwent CEA. TCAR patients were older, more likely to have coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention as well as prior contralateral CEA/CAS compared with both CEA and tfCAS. TfCAS had higher odds of stroke/death when compared with TCAR (2.9% vs 1.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-2.06; P < .001) and CEA (2.9% vs 1.3%; aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 2.01-2.43; P < .001). CEA had slightly lower odds of stroke/death compared with TCAR (1.3% vs 1.6%; aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001). TfCAS had lower odds of cranial nerve injury compared with TCAR (0.0% vs 0.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00-0.00; P < .001) and CEA (0.0% vs 2.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.0-0.0; P < .001) as well as lower odds of myocardial infarction compared with CEA (0.4% vs 0.6%; aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.84; P < .001). CEA compared with TCAR had higher odds of myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 0.5%; aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54; P < .001) and cranial nerve injury (2.3% vs 0.3%; aOR, 9.42; 95% CI, 7.78-11.4; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although tfCAS may be beneficial for select patients, the lower stroke/death rates associated with CEA and TCAR are preferred. When deciding between CEA and TCAR, it is important to weigh additional procedural factors and outcomes such as myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury, particularly when stroke/death rates are similar. Additionally, evaluating subgroups that may benefit from one procedure over another is essential for informed decision-making and enhanced patient care in the treatment of carotid stenosis.

Patient decision-making in the era of transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: The National Coverage Determination on carotid stenting by Medicare in October 2023 stipulates that patients participate in a shared decision-making (SDM) conversation with their proceduralist before an intervention. However, to date, there is no validated SDM tool that incorporates transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) into its decision platform. Our objective was to elicit patient and surgeon experiences and preferences through a qualitative approach to better inform the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. METHODS: We performed longitudinal perioperative semistructured interviews of 20 participants using purposive maximum variation sampling, a qualitative technique designed for identification and selection of information-rich cases, to define domains important to participants undergoing carotid endarterectomy or TCAR and impressions of SDM. We also performed interviews with nine vascular surgeons to elicit their input on the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. Interview data were coded and analyzed using inductive content analysis coding. RESULTS: We identified three important domains that contribute to the participants' ultimate decision on which procedure to choose: their individual values, their understanding of the disease and each procedure, and how they prefer to make medical decisions. Participant values included themes such as success rates, "wanting to feel better," and the proceduralist's experience. Participants varied in their desired degree of understanding of carotid disease, but all individuals wished to discuss each option with their proceduralist. Participants' desired medical decision-making style varied on a spectrum from complete autonomy to wanting the proceduralist to make the decision for them. Participants who preferred carotid endarterectomy felt outcomes were superior to TCAR and often expressed a desire to eliminate the carotid plaque. Those selecting TCAR felt it was a newer, less invasive option with the shortest procedural and recovery times. Surgeons frequently noted patient factors such as age and anatomy, as well as the availability of long-term data, as reasons to preferentially select one procedure. For most participants, their surgeon was viewed as the most important source of information surrounding their disease and procedure. CONCLUSIONS: SDM surrounding carotid revascularization is nuanced and marked by variation in patient preferences surrounding autonomy when choosing treatment. Given the mandate by Medicare to participate in a SDM interaction before carotid stenting, this analysis offers critical insights that can help to guide an efficient and effective dialog between patients and providers to arrive at a shared decision surrounding therapeutic intervention for patients with carotid disease.

Investigation of the Weekend Effect on Peri-Operative Complications and Mortality Following Carotid Revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Outcomes for weekend surgical interventions are associated with higher rates of mortality and complications compared to weekday interventions. While prior investigations have reported the 'weekend effect' for carotid endarterectomy (CEA), this association remains unclear for Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) and Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting (TFCAS). We investigated the weekend effect for all three carotid revascularization methods. METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) for patients undergoing CEA, TCAR, and TFCAS between 2016-2022. Chi-square and logistic regression modeling analyzed outcomes including in-hospital stroke, death, MI, and 30-day mortality by weekend vs. weekday intervention. Backward stepwise regression was utilized to identify significant confounding variables and were ultimately included in each final logistic regression model. Logistic regression of outcomes was substratified by symptomatic status. Secondary multivariable analysis compared outcomes between the three revascularization methods by weekend vs. weekday interventions. RESULTS: 155,962 procedures were analyzed including 103,790 CEA, 31,666 TCAR and 20,506 TFCAS. Of these, 1988 CEA, 246 TCAR and 820 TFCAS received weekend interventions. Logistic regression demonstrated no significant differences for TCAR, and increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death/MI for CEA [OR:1.31,(1.04-1.65)] and TFCAS [OR:1.46,(1.09-1.96)] weekend procedures. Asymptomatic TCAR patients had nearly triple the odds of 30-day mortality [OR:2.85,(1.06-7.68), P=0.038]. Similarly, odds of in-hospital death were nearly tripled for asymptomatic CEA [OR:2.89,(1.30-6.43), P=0.009] and asymptomatic TFCAS [OR:2.78,(1.34-5.76), P=0.006] patients. Secondary analysis demonstrated that CEA and TCAR had no significant differences for all outcomes. TFCAS was associated with increased odds of stroke and death compared to CEA and TCAR. CONCLUSION: In this observational cohort study, we found that weekend carotid revascularization is associated with increased odds of complications and mortality. Furthermore, asymptomatic weekend patients perform worse in the CEA and TFCAS procedural groups. Among the three revascularization methods, TFCAS is associated with the highest odds of perioperative stroke and mortality. As such, our findings suggest that TFCAS procedures should be avoided over the weekend, in favor of CEA or TCAR. In patients who are poor candidates for CEA, TCAR offers the lowest morbidity and mortality for weekend procedures.

Association between Asian race and perioperative outcomes after carotid revascularization varies with Asian procedure density.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative outcomes following carotid revascularization are understudied in Asian patients. We aimed to assess whether disease severity and postoperative outcomes following carotid revascularization differ between Asian and White patients, and whether this varies with Asian procedure density. METHODS: We analyzed the Vascular Quality Initiative Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting datasets from 2003 to 2021. Regions were divided into tertiles based on Asian procedure density. Propensity scores were used to match Asian and White patients based on patient factors and procedure type. The primary outcome variable was a collapsed composite of in-hospital ipsilateral stroke/death/myocardial infarction. χ2 tests were used to assess association between Asian race and disease severity, center and surgeon volume, and 1-year outcomes. Logistic and Cox regressions were performed between the matched cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 1766 Asian and 159,608 White patients underwent carotid revascularization, and we identified 2704 patients (1352 Asian and 1352 White) in the matched cohorts. Among propensity matched patients, all-comer Asian patients more commonly had >80% ipsilateral stenosis (63% vs 52%; P < .001) and a moderate/severe preoperative Rankin score (7.6% vs 5.1%; P = .007). The rate of in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction was higher in Asian patients (2.6% vs 1.3%; P = .012), and this disparity was more pronounced in the lowest tertile of Asian procedure density (4.3% vs 0.5%; P < .001). Logistic regression in the propensity-matched cohort demonstrated Asian race was associated with lower odds of intervention at highest volume centers (odds ratio [OR], 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.3; P < .001) and by highest volume surgeons (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.3-0.4; P < .001). Asian race was associated with higher odds of in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8; P = .031), and there was a significant interaction between Asian procedure density and the relationship between Asian race and this outcome (interaction P = .001). After accounting for center and surgeon volume, the association of Asian race and the composite outcome was mitigated (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.7-3.3; P = .300). Cox regression between the matched cohorts demonstrated that Asian race was associated with lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = .001) and higher risk of 1-year reintervention (hazard ratio, 16; 95% CI, 1.8-142; P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: Asian patients are more likely to present with a higher degree of carotid stenosis, higher preoperative risk, and experience worse perioperative outcomes. The association of Asian race with perioperative stroke/death/myocardial infarction varies with Asian procedure density and is also confounded by center and surgeon volume. These results highlight the importance of understanding referral patterns and cultural effects on outcomes disparities in Asian patients.

Polyvascular disease is common in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy and lower extremity bypass and is associated with worse outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Polyvascular disease is strongly associated with increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, its prevalence in patients undergoing carotid and lower extremity surgical revascularization and its impact on outcomes are unknown. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or infrainguinal lower extremity bypass (LEB), 2013-2019. Polyvascular disease was defined as presence of atherosclerotic occlusive disease in more than one arterial bed: carotid, coronary, and infrainguinal. Primary outcomes were (1) composite perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) or death and (2) 5-year survival. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were evaluated using the χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards multivariable models. RESULTS: Polyvascular disease was identified in 47% of CEA (39.0% in 2 arterial beds, 7.6% in 3 arterial beds; n = 93,736) and 47% of LEB (41.0% in 2 arterial beds, 5.7% in 3 arterial beds; n = 25,223). For both CEA and LEB, patients with polyvascular disease had more comorbidities including hypertension, congestive heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking, diabetes mellitus, and end-stage renal disease (P < .0001). Perioperative MI/death rates increased with increasing number of vascular beds affected following CEA (0.9% in 1 bed vs 1.5% in 2 beds vs 2.7% in 3 beds; P < .001) and LEB (2.2% in 1 bed vs 5.3% in 2 beds vs 6.6% in 3 beds; P < .001). Polyvascular disease was associated independently with perioperative MI/death after CEA (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.81;P < .0001) and LEB (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.52-2.08; P < .0001). Five-year survival was decreased in patients with polyvascular disease after CEA (82% in 3 beds vs 88% in 2 beds vs 92% in 1 bed; P < .01) and LEB (72% in 3 beds vs 75% in 2 beds vs 84% in 1 bed; P < .01) in a dose-dependent manner, with the lowest 5-year survival observed in those with three arterial beds involved. Polyvascular disease was independently associated with 5-year mortality after CEA (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.24-1.40; P = .0001) and LEB (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.20-1.41; P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Polyvascular disease is common in patients undergoing CEA and LEB and is associated with a higher risk of perioperative MI/death and decreased long-term survival. After revascularization, patients with polyvascular disease should be considered for more aggressive cardioprotective medications and closer follow-up.

Ulceration location is associated with clinical course in carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Plaque ulceration in carotid artery stenosis is a risk factor for cerebral ischemic events; however, the characteristics that determine plaque vulnerability are not fully understood. We thus assessed the association between plaque ulceration sites and cerebrovascular ischemic attack. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the clinical data of 72 consecutive patients diagnosed with carotid artery stenosis with plaque ulcers. After excluding patients with pseudo-occlusion, a history of previous carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting before the ulcer was first discovered, follow-up data of less than 1 month, or carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting performed within 1 month after the ulcer was first discovered, 60 patients were ultimately included. Patients were divided into proximal and distal groups based on the ulcer location relative to the most stenotic point. The primary endpoints were ipsilateral cerebrovascular ischemic events ("ischemic events"), such as amaurosis fugax, transient ischemic attack, or ischemic stroke due to carotid artery stenosis with plaque ulceration. The association between ulcer location and ischemic events was also assessed. RESULTS: In the patients with plaque ulcer, more patients had proximal than distal plaque ulcers (39 vs 21; P = .028). The median follow-up duration was 3.8 years (interquartile range, 1.5-6.2 years). Nineteen patients (32%) experienced ischemic event. Ischemic events occurred more frequently in the distal than in the proximal group (18% vs 59%; P = .005). Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated a significantly shorter event-free time in the distal group (log-rank P = .021). In univariate analysis, distal ulcer location was associated with ischemic events (odds ratio [OR], 2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-7.65; P = .03). Multivariate analysis using two different models also showed that distal ulcer location was independently associated with ischemic events (Model 1: OR, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.26-11.78; P = .03; Model 2: OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 1.49-12.49; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with carotid artery stenosis and plaque ulcers located distal to the most stenotic point are more likely to experience cerebrovascular ischemic attacks. Therefore, carotid plaques with ulcers located distal to the most stenotic point may be a potential indication for surgical treatment.

Locoregional anesthesia is associated with decreased cardiac complications in symptomatic heart failure patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Although the current literature reports no advantage for locoregional anesthesia (LRA) over general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), there remains a gap in understanding the impact of LRA on individuals with congestive heart failure (CHF). This study aims to assess whether the choice of anesthesia influences the rates of perioperative complications within this patient population. METHODS: Using the Vascular Quality Initiative CEA module, all patients undergoing CEA between 2013 and 2023 were identified. The subset of patients with CHF was included, and patients were divided based on the type of anesthesia received. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared using the χ2 or Fischer's exact test as appropriate for categorical variables and the independent t test or Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate for continuous variables. A sensitivity analysis was performed based on the symptomatic status of CHF, and the association between anesthesia modality and postoperative outcomes was studied using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The primary outcomes of this study included perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), acute HF, and the combination of MI and acute HF defined as major cardiac complications. RESULTS: A total of 21,292 patients (19,730 receiving GA, 1562 receiving LRA) with a diagnosis of CHF undergoing CEA were identified. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, LRA was independently associated with lower MI (odds ratio [OR]; 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-0.96), acute HF (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09-0.87), major cardiac complications (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.13-0.67), hemodynamic instability (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.78), cranial nerve injury (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.81), shunt use (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.20-0.31), and neuromonitoring device use (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.17-0.24) compared with GA in patients with symptomatic CHF. No difference in MI, acute HF, and major cardiac complications was seen in patients with asymptomatic CHF. CONCLUSIONS: CEA can be performed safely in patients with CHF. Using LRA is associated with a decreased incidence of perioperative cardiac complications in patients with symptomatic HF undergoing CEA.

The effect of the collateral cerebrovascular circulation on tolerance to carotid artery cross-clamping and on early outcome after carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The Circle of Willis (CoW) serves as the primary source of contralateral blood supply in patients who undergo carotid artery cross-clamping (CC) for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). It has been suggested that the CoW's anatomy influences CEA outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate associations between the cerebral collateral circulation, a positive awake test for intraoperative neurologic deficit after carotid CC, and postoperative adverse neurologic events. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted searching MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for studies that assessed the cerebral circulation, including CoW variations, using neuroimaging techniques in patients who underwent carotid CC. For the metanalytical incidence, the statistical technique used was weight averaging. Otherwise, descriptive analysis was used due to the excessive heterogeneity of the studies. RESULTS: Eight publications, seven cohort and one case-controlled study, involving 1313 patients who underwent carotid artery CC under loco-regional anesthesia, were included in the systematic review. The incidence of positive awake test in the cohort studies ranged from 4.4% to 19.7%. Carotid artery CC resulted in positive awake test in 5% to 91% of patients with alterations in the anterior portion and in 27% to 74% with alterations in the posterior portion of the CoW. A positive awake test in patients with contralateral carotid stenosis or occlusion ranged from 5.8% to 45.7%. Contralateral carotid stenosis >70% or occlusion were associated with a positive awake test (P < .001). Patients with incomplete CoW did not have statistically significant correlation with intraoperative neurological deficits after CC. Data were insufficient to evaluate the effect of the collateral circulation on early outcome after CEA. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, contralateral carotid artery stenosis or occlusion, but not CoW abnormalities, were associated with a positive awake test after carotid artery CC. Further research is needed to evaluate which specific CoW anomaly predicts neurologic deficit after CC and to confirm association between a positive awake test and clinical outcome after CEA.

Outcomes following carotid revascularization for stroke stratified by Modified Rankin Scale and time of intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The relationship between baseline Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) in patients with prior stroke and optimal timing of carotid revascularization is unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the timing of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after prior stroke, stratified by preoperative mRS. METHODS: We identified patients with recent stroke who underwent tfCAS, TCAR, or CEA between 2012 and 2021. Patients were stratified by preoperative mRS (0-1, 2, 3-4, or 5) and days from symptom onset to intervention (time to intervention; ≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, and 91-180 days). First, we performed univariate analyses comparing in-hospital outcomes between separate mRS or time-to-intervention cohorts for all carotid intervention methods. Afterward, multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for demographics and comorbidities across groups, and outcomes between the various intervention methods were compared. Primary outcome was the in-hospital stroke/death rate. RESULTS: We identified 4260 patients who underwent tfCAS, 3130 patients who underwent TCAR, and 20,012 patients who underwent CEA. Patients were most likely to have minimal disability (mRS, 0-1 [61%]) and least likely to have severe disability (mRS, 5 [1.5%]). Patients most often underwent revascularization in 3 to 14 days (45%). Across all intervention methods, increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death (all P < .03), whereas increasing time to intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates (all P < .01). After adjustment for demographics and comorbidities, undergoing tfCAS was associated with higher stroke/death compared with undergoing CEA (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-1.9; P < .01) or undergoing TCAR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.8; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with preoperative stroke, optimal timing for carotid revascularization varies with stroke severity. Increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death rates, whereas increasing time to-intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates. Overall, patients undergoing CEA were associated with lower in-hospital stroke/deaths. To determine benefit for delayed intervention, these results should be weighed against the risk of recurrent stroke during the interval before intervention.

Predictors of prolonged length of stay after elective carotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative day-one discharge is used as a quality-of-care indicator after carotid revascularization. This study identifies predictors of prolonged length of stay (pLOS), defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after elective carotid revascularization. METHODS: Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2016 and 2022 were included in this analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of pLOS, defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after each procedure. RESULTS: A total of 118,625 elective cases were included. pLOS was observed in nearly 23.2% of patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Major adverse events, including neurological, cardiac, infectious, and bleeding complications, occurred in 5.2% of patients and were the most significant contributor to pLOS after the three procedures. Age, female sex, non-White race, insurance status, high comorbidity index, prior ipsilateral CEA, non-ambulatory status, symptomatic presentation, surgeries occurring on Friday, and postoperative hypo- or hypertension were significantly associated with pLOS across all three procedures. For CEA, additional predictors included contralateral carotid artery occlusion, preoperative use of dual antiplatelets and anticoagulation, low physician volume (<11 cases/year), and drain use. For TCAR, preoperative anticoagulation use, low physician case volume (<6 cases/year), no protamine use, and post-stent dilatation intraoperatively were associated with pLOS. One-year analysis showed a significant association between pLOS and increased mortality for all three procedures; CEA (hazard ratio [HR],1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-1.82), TCAR (HR,1.56; 95% CI, 1.35-1.80), and TFCAS (HR, 1.33; 95%CI, 1.08-1.64) (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: A postoperative LOS of more than 1 day is not uncommon after carotid revascularization. Procedure-related complications are the most common drivers of pLOS. Identifying patients who are risk for pLOS highlights quality improvement strategies that can optimize short and 1-year outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization.

The 5-Factor Modified Frailty Index is a Concise and Effective Predictor of 30-Day Adverse Outcomes in Carotid Endarterectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is a clinically identifiable condition characterized by heightened vulnerability. The 5-item Modified Frailty Index provides a concise calculation of frailty that has proven effective in predicting adverse perioperative outcomes across a variety of surgical disciplines. However, there is a paucity of research examining the validity of 11-item Modified Frailty Index (mFI-5) in carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This study aimed to investigate the association between mFI-5 and 30-day outcomes of CEA. METHODS: Patients underwent CEA were identified from American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted database from 2012 to 2021. Patients with age<18 were excluded. Patients were stratified into four cohorts based on their mFI-5 scores: 0, 1, 2, or 3+. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare 30-day perioperative outcomes adjusting for preoperative variables with P value<0.1. RESULTS: Compared to controls (mFI-5 = 0), patients mFI-5 = 1 had higher risk of stroke (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.333, P = 0.02), unplanned operation (aOR = 1.38, P < 0.01), and length of stay (LOS) > 7 days (aOR = 0.814, P < 0.01). Patients with mFI-5 = 2 had higher stroke (aOR = 1.719, P < 0.01), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (aOR = 1.315, P = 0.01), sepsis (aOR = 2.243, P = 0.01), discharge not to home (aOR = 1.200, P < 0.01), 30-day readmission (aOR = 1.405, P < 0.01). Compared with controls, patients with mFI-5≥3 had higher mortality (aOR = 1.997 P = 0.02), MACE (aOR = 1.445, P = 0.03), cardiac complications (aOR = 1.901, P < 0.01), pulmonary events (aOR = 2.196, P < 0.01), sepsis (aOR = 3.65, P < 0.01), restenosis (aOR = 2.606, P = 0.02), unplanned operation (aOR = 1.69, P < 0.01), LOS>7 days (aOR = 1.425, P < 0.01), discharge not to home (aOR = 2.127, P < 0.01), and 30-day readmission (aOR = 2.427, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The mFI-5 is associated with 30-day mortality and complications including stroke, MACE, cardiac complications, pulmonary complications, sepsis, and restenosis. Additionally, elevated mFI-5 scores correlate with an increased likelihood of unplanned operations, extended LOS, discharge to facilities other than home, and 30-day readmissions, all of which could negatively impact long-term prognosis. Therefore, mFI-5 can serve as a concise yet effective metric of frailty in patients undergoing CEA.